Jake Tapper to Carney: How about you cut the crap and admit that Obama supports gay marriage?

posted at 4:05 pm on May 7, 2012 by Allahpundit

Via the Examiner, what are the odds that Joe Biden and Arne Duncan and, oh, 99.9 percent of the rest of the liberal intelligentsia support legalizing gay marriage but The One doesn’t? It’s getting harder every day to sustain this charade, which is why Axelrod is suddenly eager to change the subject:

Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod on Monday pivoted sharply to Mitt Romney’s views on gay marriage when reporters pressed him on the president’s stance on the issue.

On a conference call with reporters, Axelrod said there’s a “clear distinction” between Obama’s views on gay-rights issues and the presumptive GOP nominee’s views.

“There couldn’t be a starker contrast on this issue than with Gov. Romney, who has funded efforts to roll back marriage laws in California and other places,” Axelrod told reporters on the call.

In turning to Romney, Axelrod ducked a question from a reporter on whether Obama supports gay marriage.

Actually, I can’t decide whether the back-to-back Biden/Duncan endorsements are a case of those guys going rogue or something they’re coordinating with O’s campaign to test the waters on Obama himself possibly backing gay marriage. He wants to avoid that if he can lest his position alienate a key constituency (he’s already in trouble with seniors), but maybe he can’t avoid it. Like Chuck Todd says, the less “Wall Street money” Obama takes in, the more important “gay money” and other fundraising sources become. Beyond that, if the economy continues to stall, The One will become increasingly desperate to change the subject — so much so that he might prefer to roll the dice on backing gay marriage in hopes of creating a sensational distraction. It’d be a risky play, but if the new post-austerity Europe performs the way everyone expects, the odds of the U.S. economy recovering before November will deteriorate and he’ll be a very long longshot to win. A culture-war campaign could be his Hail Mary pass. Anyone seriously believe it would work, though?

Two clips here, one of Tapper and the other of Carney once again trying to explain Obama’s position on same-sex marriage. I think he’s saying that O supports civil unions and that he opposes any state attempts to repeal domestic partnership rights once they’ve been granted, i.e. a one-way ratchet, but I’m not sure Carney’s 100% confident that he understands Obama’s position on this either. Oh, and as for Axelrod’s point about Romney opposing gay rights, here’s a PDF reminder of where Mitt stood circa 1994. Is the real Romney a gay-marriage opponent who was pretending to support “full equality” then in order to get elected in a blue state or is he a gay-marriage supporter who’s pretending to oppose full equality now in order to get elected in a purplish nation?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Is the real Romney a gay-marriage opponent who was pretending to support “full equality” then in order to get elected in a blue state or is he a gay-marriage supporter who’s pretending to oppose full equality now in order to get elected in a purplish nation?

To paraphrase an old TV hair-dye commercial, “Only his Etch-a-sketch knows for sure!”

Obama has a serious problem. When the people of California, voted to pass Proposition 8, banning gay marriage the majority of blacks and hispanics voted for the amendment. Just how much of his base is he willing to offend.

Watch North Carolina Tuesday, when they vote on a state constitution amendment to ban gay marriage.

For a long time the secular democrats have tried to walk that tight rope of fooling the black and hispanic people of faith. That time may be ending.

Obama wants to have it both ways on this issue because he knows what the eventual outcome is going to be, but it isn’t safe enough for him to come out in favor of it quite yet. While a state like NC still has the votes to ban it, the numbers have shifted so fast that more and more liberal/moderate states will give it the OK.

I suspect the same is true for Romney. Mitt has to be against it right now, but we will see where he stands in five or ten years.

Actually, I can’t decide whether the back-to-back Biden/Duncan endorsements are a case of those guys going rogue or something they’re coordinating with O’s campaign to test the waters on Obama himself possibly backing gay marriage. He wants to avoid that if he can lest his position alienate a key constituency (he’s already in trouble with seniors), but maybe he can’t avoid it.

The only reason that Obama has not come out in favour of SSM has to do with the social conservatism of African-Americans, Hispanics, and white blue-collar voters. While the first two will vote for him, he can’t afford any dilution in turnout. In fact, since he has already written off male blue-collars, he really needs increased turnout over 2008 given that some of the swing states that he won last time, he has almost certainly already lost (Indiana, Iowa, North Carolina).

Coming out in favour of SSM allows him to fire up the base, but he runs the risk of, perhaps, suppressing some of the Hispanic vote…I think blacks will vote for him even if comes out in favour of polygamy, FGM, bestiality, slavery, and human sacrifice.

That’s true, but do you really see black voters not turning out again for Obama if he were to announce his support for gay marriage? I don’t…and, like I said, I think there’s a net gain since they’ll energize a portion of their base, as well. I don’t believe Obama is against gay marriage at all…publicly he’s said he was, and I believe that’s what will continue to evolve.

changer1701 on May 7, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Some Latinos may be moochers and grafters and welfare queens but they are also devoted Catholics. For some reason, the idea of having one man’s sausage up another man’s wazoo doesn’t fill them with excitement.

Exactly why we must force the democrat party to embrace same sex “marriage”, while the GOP must remain strong for traditional marriage and family values.

Homosexuals are going to vote however they’re going to vote either way, the vast majority will vote democrat even if Stalin was running.

Blacks and hispanics however, there are substantial numbers waiting to be split off for the democrat party, and something as shocking and offensive as same sex marriage is exactly the wedge that can do it.

Social conservatism will win the day, much to the dismay of Mobys and liberaltarians everywhere.

Obama can never come out in favor of gay marriage because his Islamic buddies think it is an abomination. That is why he uses his “tools” to get the gay vote for him without ever saying anything affirmative.

I think blacks will vote for him even if comes out in favour of polygamy, FGM, bestiality, slavery, and human sacrifice.

Resist We Much on May 7, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Obama came out in favor of bestiality many years ago. He admitted to Bill Ayers that he ate a dog, but the latter either misread his notes or decided to put the milder version of the event down in writing.

I think blacks will vote for him even if comes out in favour of polygamy, FGM, bestiality, slavery, and human sacrifice.

Resist We Much on May 7, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Dummies. He does nothing for them, but takes them back. He has done more to set back race-relations than anyone bef. him, for generations to come. He has ruined the chances of a really qualified black, man or woman, to be president, in many, many years to come. He cheated them and s/b punished by them.

Not to ignore their current plight in huuuuge unemployment, especially of youth. But, vote for him, bros/siss.

Marriage is recognized as a legal contract by the federal government, and the government allows for various benefits afforded to those who do marry. Not even mentioning the plethora of other marriage laws like hospital visitation, joint tax filing, etc.

To restrict the legal recognition of marriage to exclude same sex couples…based only on the sex of the marriage applicants…violates the equal rights and privileges guaranteed to ALL Americans by the constitution…covered in the due process and equal protection clauses.

Obama has a serious problem. When the people of California, voted to pass Proposition 8, banning gay marriage the majority of blacks and hispanics voted for the amendment. Just how much of his base is he willing to offend.

DVPTexFla on May 7, 2012 at 4:48 PM

This. I’m often amazed at how very religious African American and Latinos continue to fall for the Democrats Shell Game. Conservatives need to make better inroads in these two demographics becasue they truly are ripe for picking.

To restrict the legal recognition of marriage to exclude same sex couples…based only on the sex of the marriage applicants…violates the equal rights and privileges guaranteed to ALL Americans by the constitution…covered in the due process and equal protection clauses.

JetBoy on May 7, 2012 at 4:55 PM

I will agree with that as soon as I am allowed to use female shower rooms. The restriction against it is clearly gender based and therefore unconstitutional.

JetBoy…. again, come back to us and ask for the Republican party to support gay marriage only AFTER you have destroyed the violent gay mafia tendancies that currently the gay movement is represented by.

After all, it’s abundantly clear you gays will not tolerate a world wherein there is anyone who disagrees with the stance “being gay is the only important thing, after all, and if you disagree you deserve whatever happens.”

Why should the Republican party write it’s own destruction? Trading Mormons, Evangelicals, etc. for the gay lobby is not good politics. Sure, there is some popular support for “gay marriage” right now, but that’s because most people have forgotten the 2008 gay riots. Once those return, bye bye to that popular support. People are willing to let gays do their own thing, as long as it doesn’t affect them. But gays don’t want that–they want everyone to do THEIR bidding. And people will not tolerate that.

To restrict the legal recognition of marriage to exclude same sex couples…based only on the sex of the marriage applicants…violates the equal rights and privileges guaranteed to ALL Americans by the constitution…covered in the due process and equal protection clauses.

JetBoy on May 7, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Then PETA can claim equal protection for your dog. They already want to let your animals sue their owners.

After all, it’s abundantly clear you gays will not tolerate a world wherein there is anyone who disagrees with the stance “being gay is the only important thing, after all, and if you disagree you deserve whatever happens.”
Vanceone on May 7, 2012 at 5:02 PM

pambi: I know JetBoy all too well. We’ve had this discussion for 5 years on Hotair. Jetboy on most things is okay (aside from his Charlie Crist fascination), but on gays, he is curiously blind.

Back in the aftermath of the Prop 8 vote, Jetboy consistently, and without fail, took the side of the gays, and defended them completely. Including such despicable actions as attacking old ladies holding crosses, firing people for opposing the Prop 8 vote, etc. I believe the exact words he used involved such things as “crosses of taunt” and so forth. No less than Allahpundit himself pointed out at the time how JetBoy was defending deplorable behavior on the part of the gays. And he always has. Just search the archives, and you’ll see yourself.

Oh, one last thing: I’m perfectly aware that many, if not most, gays are not dictatorial types. Indeed, most of the conservative gays are just fine.

But the gay movement as a whole, and the ones pushing the issue, are most certainly dictators in waiting. That’s why I cannot support any of these “rights” until that facet of the gay movement is eliminated. You know, the one that elsewhere around the world puts priests in jail for their sermons and tries to ban Bibles.

To restrict the legal recognition of marriage to exclude same sex couples…based only on the sex of the marriage applicants…violates the equal rights and privileges guaranteed to ALL Americans by the constitution…covered in the due process and equal protection clauses.

JetBoy…. again, come back to us and ask for the Republican party to support gay marriage only AFTER you have destroyed the violent gay mafia tendancies that currently the gay movement is represented by.

After all, it’s abundantly clear you gays will not tolerate a world wherein there is anyone who disagrees with the stance “being gay is the only important thing, after all, and if you disagree you deserve whatever happens.”

I am always disavowing and criticizing far Left loud and vocal gay groups. Here on HA, at work, out with friends, or even on a date, I call out the leftist agenda of various gay organizations. If you’ve payed attention to anything I’ve commented on that subject you’d realize that.

To restrict the legal recognition of marriage to exclude same sex couples…based only on the sex of the marriage applicants…violates the equal rights and privileges guaranteed to ALL Americans by the constitution…covered in the due process and equal protection clauses.

JetBoy on May 7, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Wrong.

Discrimination on the basis of sex is perfectly all right when it is relevant to the matter at hand, i.e. one may discriminate against male applicants for the job of modeling women’s swimsuits.

Marriage exists and is restricted to male-female pairings because that pairing, unlike any other, results in new life being brought forth.

You deny the fundamental value and purpose of marriage, which is to provide a stable platform for the protection and raising of the end products of male-female sex. Hence, the sex of the partners involved IS relevant, and discrimination is justified.

You cannot meet the bar for marriage, so you demand it be lowered. What a pathetic piece of work you are, JetBoy. You could be respected if you respected the value of the family and of marriage to society; instead, you insist that you get what you want even though you don’t need it or deserve it.

Back in the aftermath of the Prop 8 vote, Jetboy consistently, and without fail, took the side of the gays, and defended them completely. Including such despicable actions as attacking old ladies holding crosses…

My BS meter just overheated.

Yes, vance and I have both been around HA for quite some time now and have had many discussions on this topic. But I absolutely did NOT take the gay’s side in the prop 8/”cross lady” incident. I thought I was clear that knocking the cross out of her hands was out of line, and remember, no one in that crowd so much as touched her…so to say she was attacked is going a bit overboard.

It was an obvious high emotion crowd that was very angry, and the only reason that lady went into the lions den (they didn’t go to her) was to use the symbol of the cross (a hastily constructed cross at that, made from cardboard and styrofoam) as something to shove in the crowd’s face. That was her only viable intent, and she knew full well what she was doing and what she was getting into. It was like going to a football game, and rubbing it in amongst the losing team’s angry and upset fans. And you have to own up to your own actions.

As with every debate we have with the left, I ask, as always, when you have to always lie about what your true beliefs are in order to get elected, what does that say about you and your agenda?

If you are a leftist and know Obama is lying to the American people in order to be re-elected – what does that say about you and him?

You can argue all day that supporting gay marriage is the right policy – but that isn’t the point. The point is that to get elected, your candidates always lie about their positions on issues. How can you be proud of that? How can you support an ideology that must always lie?

Then you can argue “we support doing what is right, but the voters are too stupid, so we have to lie to them”. That is an argument for tyranny and an argument for why you don’t believe in democracy. it’s not an argument for you being right or morally superior.

So really, how do you justify that you and your candidates always lie?

Nope. People who care about marriage, gay AND straight, will not tolerate people like you whose selfishness leads them to destroy it.

You have zero concept of the value of marriage. None. You deny its fundamental purpose, mock its premises, and then demand that it be handed over to you.

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2012 at 5:28 PM

That’s a lot of pompous, self-important assumption going on there. What exactly am I being “selfish” about? Seems to me that you’re the one being selfish. And please, enlighten my feeble brain on the concept of marriage. Lord knows heteros have always respected the entire marriage process…if anyone is going to destroy marriage, it’s you heteros.

I do not support being “handed over” marriage…all I want is to share that institution with you…but you won’t share, simply because you don’t like it. Which makes you the selfish one.

And please…continue on claiming to know my concept of love and devotion.

What exactly am I being “selfish” about? Seems to me that you’re the one being selfish. And please, enlighten my feeble brain on the concept of marriage. Lord knows heteros have always respected the entire marriage process…if anyone is going to destroy marriage, it’s you heteros.

And there’s the part that you need to figure out, JetBoy; Kim Kardashian and Britney Spears can be as stupid as they want, and it is still in society’s interest to offer them marriage and not you.

Why? Because their having sex will produce babies, and those babies need a legal identity and to be cared for. Hence why we have marriage. The benefits and privileges thereof are a societal offset that is provided because childraising is inconvenient and expensive, and we thus incent people to raise that which they produce.

I do not support being “handed over” marriage…all I want is to share that institution with you…but you won’t share, simply because you don’t like it. Which makes you the selfish one.

And please…continue on claiming to know my concept of love and devotion.

JetBoy on May 7, 2012 at 5:37 PM

If you want to show love and devotion, knock yourself out. But given that you can’t do it now, there’s no chance you’re going to be able to do it with a marriage license.

Beyond that, if the economy continues to stall, The One will become increasingly desperate to change the subject — so much so that he might prefer to roll the dice on backing gay marriage in hopes of creating a sensational distraction. It’d be a risky play, but if the new post-austerity Europe performs the way everyone expects, the odds of the U.S. economy recovering before November will deteriorate and he’ll be a very long longshot to win.

Let us not forget Netanyahu announcing that Israel will hold elections in September, a year ahead of schedule, supposedly to give him a window between September and October in which to attack Iran. I don’t think Israel intends to go it alone in September when they could do it with U.S. back in January. Netanyahu thinks the biggest obstacle facing Israel is a second-term of Obama. He will rattle the sabers all summer and fall until gas in the U.S. is averaging $8/gallon. And after what happened with Mubarak and Egypt last year, I doubt the Saudis are going to ride to O’s rescue.

Why? Because their having sex will produce babies, and those babies need a legal identity and to be cared for. Hence why we have marriage. The benefits and privileges thereof are a societal offset that is provided because childraising is inconvenient and expensive, and we thus incent people to raise that which they produce.

As usual, the procreation card comes into play right on cue. I must have missed the requirement that in order to have a valid marriage, one must have children. And not just any children, their own, natural children as the product of the couple gettin’ some zoom-zoom.

And apparently you missed all the same-sex couples who ARE raising children, raising families. Many gays, men and women, have biological children as well. Just because you’re gay doesn’t mean your shooting blanks.

Yeah, the ridiculousness of the idea that society will somehow be destroyed if gay marriage is legalized across the nation never ceases. Keep on seeing the world through your own version of it.

I love it when Tapper says “I just don’t want to hear the same talking points 15 times in a row”. See the woman behind him go “ooh!” and look around the room? Yeah, how daring and surprising of a reporter in 2012, to actually demand an answer to a straightforward question, and not swallow the feces being slung at him by the monkey at the podium!

I wish obama would come out in support for gay marriage, but for political reasons he can’t.

#1) Coming out against gay marriage will reignite the debate. Right now, gay marriage is more or less quietly gaining traction in many states, and is on the way to being widely accepted.

Let me remind you none of the things conservatives had warned about (polygamy, incest, destruction of the nuclear family) has happened. The same goes for the military, as far as I can tell it still works just fine.

#2) It would hurt his reelection chances with Christians, which is unfortunate because you shouldn’t have to compromise with bigots. But this being America, in which half the country is insane at any given time, it’s a political reality he must face.

#2) It would hurt his reelection chances with Christians, which is unfortunate because you shouldn’t have to compromise with bigots. But this being America, in which half the country is insane at any given time, it’s a political reality he must face.

The worst thing that can come of Obummer’s inevitable announcement is for all the media talking heads (including FNC, you know they will) to yak about it for two weeks. So, the best conservative strategy possible:

Obama: Guess what, guys! I support gay marriage!

Conservatives: Ho Hum. So what? Who was dumb enough to ever think he didn’t? Let’s talk about the economy, jobs, Obamacare,…

Is the real Romney a gay-marriage opponent who was pretending to support “full equality” then in order to get elected in a blue state or is he a gay-marriage supporter who’s pretending to oppose full equality now in order to get elected in a purplish nation?

Does it really matter? He’ll take whatever position he thinks will help him politically anyway.

As usual, the procreation card comes into play right on cue. I must have missed the requirement that in order to have a valid marriage, one must have children. And not just any children, their own, natural children as the product of the couple gettin’ some zoom-zoom.

You’re right, you did miss it.

Why? Because their having sex will produce babies, and those babies need a legal identity and to be cared for. Hence why we have marriage. The benefits and privileges thereof are a societal offset that is provided because childraising is inconvenient and expensive, and we thus incent people to raise that which they produce.

Same-sex couplings? No such issue; therefore, no need to grant said benefits and privileges.

And apparently you missed all the same-sex couples who ARE raising children, raising families.

Ah yes, the “Julia” argument; because I choose to acquire a child, I should be able to force society to give me all the benefits and privileges of the relationships that it wants to encourage, even though I don’t want to live up to them.

Many gays, men and women, have biological children as well. Just because you’re gay doesn’t mean your shooting blanks.

Nope, sorry. You insist that it’s not a choice and that gays and lesbians can never have sex with a person of the opposite gender. Therefore, those children are impossible.

If you want to admit that you are perfectly capable of having sex with a member of the opposite gender and just choose not to do so, then I’ll accept that answer.

Yeah, the ridiculousness of the idea that society will somehow be destroyed if gay marriage is legalized across the nation never ceases. Keep on seeing the world through your own version of it.

JetBoy on May 7, 2012 at 6:14 PM

Nope, sorry. You don’t get to use that argument until you can explain how allowing people to marry children, animals, blood relatives, and multiple individuals would destroy society and negatively affect your relationship.

Jay Carney is Rachel Maddow’s less masculine brother. I don’t personally care but what percentage of significant appointees in the executive branch is either openly homesexual or strongly suspected of being homosexual? That lack of diversity is scary.

You don’t get to use that argument until you can explain how allowing people to marry children, animals, blood relatives, and multiple individuals would destroy society and negatively affect your relationship.

There is a very special relationship between a man and a woman that results in a family. Sexual intimacy is a part of it, but only a part. The attraction quite literally makes the world go around, and produces the next generation of adults. Children need to be raised by a mother and father. If either one is missing from a child’s life, that life has been deprived.

The hard truth is that such a special relationship does not and never will exist between homosexuals. Oh, I’m sure they can have their own version of a special relationship, but let’s not pretend that it’s the same. Two men can never be husband and wife. The best you can do is call them partner and partner.

A homosexual complaining that he’s not allowed to “marry” another man is as ridiculous as a man complaining he’s missing out on pregnancy, or a homosexual claiming that it’s not fair that he’s more exposed to HIV and AIDS.

When you try to “fix” it by mandating same-sex marriage, you just demean the value of marriage for everyone else.

Just another misguided attempt to make the world fit some special interest group’s version of “fair.”

I’m surprised the left hasn’t already taken to calling it “gay justice.”

As numerous people have already stated, Obama can’t admit that he is in favor of gay marriage because so many of his racial demo are against it. He’s a liar about most things and he is a liar about this issue and he needs to be made to pay a price for the lie.

What I don’t get is why this issue even matters at all. How does two men or two women declaring their love and devotion to each other do anything to impact my life? It doesn’t change my marriage. Being gay isn’t ‘catching’ and I’m not going to turn gay just because two guys are in love.

Life is too short and not having somebody to love and to be loved by would make it unbearable. Think about the joy and love you feel in your spouse and then deny that joy to an entire group of people who through no fault of their own happen to be attracted to the same sex.

Yes, the militant wing of the gay movement is annoying… but if you were treated by society as something less than human and worthless, you might resent it a bit no?

Love who you want, worship who you want, smoke what you want, it doesn’t break my bones or steal money from my wallet.

Hey fool, you might want to look up some opinion polls on that topic for spouting your ignorance. The “mainstream” position IS to support gay marriage. The “mainstream” position also doesn’t vote. But gay marriage has wide popular support, the opposite of what you spew lies about.

Marriage is recognized as a legal contract by the federal government, and the government allows for various benefits afforded to those who do marry. Not even mentioning the plethora of other marriage laws like hospital visitation, joint tax filing, etc.

To restrict the legal recognition of marriage to exclude same sex couples…based only on the sex of the marriage applicants…violates the equal rights and privileges guaranteed to ALL Americans by the constitution…covered in the due process and equal protection clauses.

JetBoy on May 7, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Oh, it’s just a contract?

Problem solved, then. Contracts can be entered into by any number of parties as long as there is mutual assent. Even corporations can be party to contracts.

Maybe the “contract” analogy isn’t as strong as you thought. Evidence suggests that marriage is not just a contract.

It’s rediculous for Obama to claim he is a “fierce advocate” for gay people then doesn’t have the guts to support gay marriage.

Even more rediculous for gays to let him get away with being such a big coward.

Gays either don’t know, or don’t want to talk about Obama’s past views on gay marriage. He once supported gay marriage back in 1996. Then as he climbed politically he decided not to support it anymore.

Gays were furious when Obama took anti-gay pastor Donnie McClurkin (spelling?) on the campaign trail with him.

Speaking of gutless, the MSM will never ask Obama/surrogates why he supported gay marriage back in 1996 but doesn’t now. Evolving indeed.

If it’s just a contract, why can’t corporations get married? Why can’t you and a couple of girlfriends, boyfriends, grandparents, nieces, and brothers all form a marriage? Joint Tenants with Rights of Survivorship sounds like a relationship that could work for any number of people.

It doesn’t change my marriage. Being gay isn’t ‘catching’ and I’m not going to turn gay just because two guys are in love.

crashland on May 7, 2012 at 6:55 PM

You’re right, on pretty much every point.

But this really is not about who lives who. Maybe foe the average gay couple it is, but it’s not for the advocates.

We’ve got three examples now – Prop 8, New England, and Kansas – where we see State government using gay marriage as a way to infringe on religious organizations.

You never hear gay marriage supporters come out against these tactics, because the ends justify the means.

To me, it’s very simple; if I was raised Catholic, gay and believe in gay marriage, I’d become a Unitarian or join a branch of Episcopalian or Protestant that supports gay marriage.

But we don’t see that. We have gay Catholics advocating for gay marriage using the state as proxy.

Once it’s federalized, do you really think the supporters are going to stop at a license? In New England, one State House tried to pass a law saying churches will lose their tax exemption if they don’t perform gay marriage ceremonies. It took national attention to stop its passing.

We can’t play the issue both ways. If we see this as inequality,(and from a citizenship issue, their is unequal treamtent), then it has to be addressed, but as a legal matter.

But once I read about studies that find civil unions are detrimental to the mental health of gay couples, because it makes them feel second-class, I know we’re no longer remedying inequality, but using civil or equal rights to make people feel better about themselves. And that is not the place of government.

I would be totally fine with that. But then all the perks and benefits the govt gives married couples would have to cease as well. As it is, you could get married in any church you want to, but without that state-issued marriage license, it isn’t recognized legally.

At least man up enough to admit that marriage is not just a contract.
tom on May 7, 2012 at 7:26 PM

I know it’s much more than a contract, but how does the federal gov’t see it ?? If not for challenges, what’s the reason for the DOMA ? Huh ?

But then all the perks and benefits the govt gives married couples would have to cease as well.
JetBoy on May 7, 2012 at 7:30 PM
JB, I understand that, and would be willing to give those up.. that’s what I mean by our gov’t getting ENTIRELY out of this subject.
Problem being: “good luck widdat”, right ? …LOL… I know.

Let me know when you can hold a reasonably intelligent adult conversation. It truly is people of your mindset that give all conservatives a bad rep.

JetBoy on May 7, 2012 at 7:36 PM

By promoting conservative ideology? Kinda proves everyone’s point about you doesn’t it? You don’t want to be a part of the conservative movement, you want to change it. There already is a political party that supports your agenda, join them.

Yes, the militant wing of the gay movement is annoying… but if you were treated by society as something less than human and worthless, you might resent it a bit no?
Love who you want, worship who you want, smoke what you want, it doesn’t break my bones or steal money from my wallet.
crashland on May 7, 2012 at 6:55 PM

You sir, (or madam) are the problem.

When a majority of the population defines reality along the narrow perspective of self-centerdness, you can pretty much say good bye to that culture.